Are there people on OH you feel could do a better job than AM or other members of the O's brass?

[Stotle]

There are probably plenty of companies you can hire and give you almost any stat information you can imagine. BIS, Bill James and others don't make all there money providing stats to Fangraphs and other publications, they probably make a significant amount of money by providing tailored data and analysis to ML Teams. I don't think we're precluded from engaging in that, but my guess is we're not engaged. Instead we have GM who doesn't understand UZR means as compared to his GM counterpart who hired an expert to provide a propretary defenseive system refining the flaws in the UZR system. Because novices don't have the means to collect the information isn't a slight on them and doesn't mean they are all only qualified to work in the stat department.

Also, it's not data collection I'm concerned with -- it's the application of that data. As great as some of the internet stat folks are, if they were publish info that was particularly useful or cutting edge they would, or will soon, be scooped up by someone. Maybe just as a consultant, but the industry keeps pretty good tabs on what's going on in the civilian world.

For example, as of a year and a half ago, there was a running joke in the industry regarding Fangraph's calculation of WAR -- primarily that the bar for replacement player was WAY too low. I don't have an opinion on that, but the folks in the industry holding that opinion certainly understood everything Fangraph's was doing and disagreed they were applying their data correctly.

Now, if someone at Fangraphs responsible for coming up with that WAR calculation were brought into the critiquing organization, I'm sure they'd quickly understand what the critiques were. Maybe they are good critiques, maybe not. But the point is the Fangraphs statistician would need to acclimate himself to the workings of the ML org, before his talents could be put to use in that particular setting.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Baltimore works with contractors -- I have seen lists from certain companies that provide various services to ML clubs involving stats and streamlining data transfer across an organization

Good to know, but I really can't imagine there is any team that doesn't by now. The questions for me would be which ones, to what degree and how do they use them in analysis.

Why did you take my "stat" department as a knock?

I kinda took it as a slight that they couldn't work at a higher management level because they hadn't been exposed to proprietary information/systems.

Drungo is awesome at laying out stats, explaining them, sifting through the noise, and presenting useful analysis of those stats

Well, application and usefullness is pretty much the key.

[SrMeowMeow]

I think baseball front offices are still very much an old boys' club. Until very recently, baseball as an establishment was resistant to new ideas. GMs still make too many mind-boggling decisions for me to accept that every GM has his job because he's one of the top 30 business/baseball minds in the country.

[Stotle]

Good to know, but I really can't imagine there is any team that doesn't by now. The questions for me would be which ones, to what degree and how do they use them in analysis.

Of the three companies I'm thinking of, none are what you would call cutting edge. Well, maybe the company that improves data sharing techniques -- they do some cool stuff.

I kinda took it as a slight that they couldn't work at a higher management level because they hadn't been exposed to proprietary information/systems.

Well, you have to learn the environment in which you'll be working before you step in and start managing research, right?

Well, application and usefullness is pretty much the key.

Right, but what is applicable and useful for the average fan isn't usually the stuff that ML stat departments are looking into when trying to gain an edge.

[Stotle]

I think baseball front offices are still very much an old boys' club. Until very recently, baseball as an establishment was resistant to new ideas. GMs still make too many mind-boggling decisions for me to accept that every GM has his job because he's one of the top 30 business/baseball minds in the country.

Agree with sentiment, but I also think a number of "crazy" decisions would make more intuitive sense if we were privvy to the internal discussions/analysis that led to such decisions.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Also, it's not data collection I'm concerned with -- it's the application of that data

Totally agree with you. Almost always the case. But in this case, there is some uniqueness as the availability of data is restricted and expensive. As such, it's hard for a novice or small company to validate new resaerch or system without good data.

[SrMeowMeow]

Agree with sentiment, but I also think a number of "crazy" decisions would make more intuitive sense if we were privvy to the internal discussions/analysis that led to such decisions.

I don't believe anyone makes completely irrational decisions. I'm sure that every move has its reasons and its causes. I'm also sure no GM has a completely free hand. But there are too many past examples of GMs openly dismissing new information or sticking to conventional wisdom in the face of conflicting research, before it became unfashionable to do so, for me to believe that suddenly everyone's at the cutting edge - not in the sense of using every latest model and reading every arcane paper, but rather having the mentality that every idea is up for debate.

The appeal to authority is not that bad an argument in most cases. But baseball has demonstrated unusual resistance to new ideas and places a lot of emphasis on tradition - two things that make me wary of giving inexplicable transactions the benefit of the doubt.

[Stotle]

I don't believe anyone makes completely irrational decisions. I'm sure that every move has its reasons and its causes. I'm also sure no GM has a completely free hand. But there are too many past examples of GMs openly dismissing new information or sticking to conventional wisdom in the face of conflicting research, before it became unfashionable to do so, for me to believe that suddenly everyone's at the cutting edge - not in the sense of using every latest model and reading every arcane paper, but rather having the mentality that every idea is up for debate.

The appeal to authority is not that bad an argument in most cases. But baseball has demonstrated unusual resistance to new ideas and places a lot of emphasis on tradition - two things that make me wary of giving inexplicable transactions the benefit of the doubt.

Oh I don't disagree. and I didn't mean to imply that MOST moves for reasonable or expainable -- just that there may by reasoning behind a move (or non-move) that makes complete sense if provided full disclosure.

I don't think everyone is "cutting edge", but I'd be comfortable saying almost every front office deploys resources towards efforts that would be considered "cutting edge". I'd also say that it's probably true that not enough of those front offices give enough weight to the work that part of the org is doing. But I've even seen it at the scouting level over the past two years -- changes in scout sheets, more reliance on technology, some teams implementing biomechanical analysis, etc.

[Stotle]

Totally agree with you. Almost always the case. But in this case, there is some uniqueness as the availability of data is restricted and expensive. As such, it's hard for a novice or small company to validate new resaerch or system without good data.

Agree wholeheartedly. I think some of the super stat folks that post here would have a field day if given access to the data mined and sorted through by ML clubs and their vendors.

[JDubs]

When you spend every day with professional ball players, and come up through the ranks of amateur ball, you have a sense for the types of players that make it and the types of players that don't. Of course it doesn't make you infallable, but it is a HUGE advantage. I'd say pro experience isn't necessary for an amateur scout (scouting for draft or international scout), but for a pro scout it's a pretty important.

I often rely on mentally comping to players I played with that did or did not have success in college/minors when assessing high school and college players. Also, I never said it "gives you the tools to be a scout". But two people equally equipped mentally to evaluate players, one with baseball experience has an advantage. You just are not right about this, I'm sorry.

A fan watching the game is absolutely not better training, and any argument you make will be a weak one. I mean, if you'd like to share some sort of experience that is driving these opinions of yours, I'm open to having my mind changed. But this is almost 100% counter to what, like every one in the industry thinks (in as much as I've spoken with them).

I wasn't asked for credentials when I got my job because I was vouched for by someone who was very familiar with my level of understanding of the game. To some extent you are right, in that there are organizations who have started to farm the ranks of intelligent non-baseball people for scouting positions because they are a clean slate that can have the organization's values imprinted on them. But we are talking entry level positions as an associate scout (some orgs go so far as to hire an Area Scout with no baseball credentials, but that is RARE).

This is an honest question -- are you involved in scouting, or do you know scouts? I'm just curious as to how you've arrived at these conclusions about the industry.

Very interesting discussion and a worthwhile one I think.

I'm not involved in sports at all, but I am a CEO of a company and a board member for two others, and I've got 20 years experience working in various positions for large corporations. I can't speak about professional talent scouting as I have exactly zero experience in pro sports, but I don't think that would preclude me (or anyone else) from successfully acting as a General Manager for a pro sports team.

Here's why. I run a software development company. The core of our business is coding and artwork. I've never written a line of code or drawn a picture more complex than a stick person in my life. By your example, I should be completely incapable of successfully running my business, as I have no skill at all in the core disciplines critical to my company's success. But my job isn't to write code or create artwork - it's to set the strategy and goals for my company and to find the right people to execute them and then to course correct the company whenever something changes in the industry that demands a reaction.

So the first thing I did when I started my company was:

Hire a Creative Director / Lead Artist

Hire a Technical Director / Lead Coder

My businesses success is not determined by how good a coder I am or how good an artist I am - it's based on how well I did in hiring my Lead Developers and giving them the proper direction and tools for them to successfully achieve our business goals.

I don't believe pro sports is any different from any other business. Certainly, I could be wrong. Maybe sports works completely contrary to the business world at large, but given the success of guys like Beane and Epstein, I don't believe that's the case.

Maybe it would help you understand my perspective if I were to indicate how I'd run the O's if I were appointed GM tomorrow. Here are the top things I'd do in order of importance;

1. Bring in an independent financial analyst to evaluate the entire financial performance of the organization from top to bottom and identify areas of weakness and strength.

2. Interview every employee in the entire organization from janitors to players to Vice Presidents and get their personal, confidential opinion on what's right and what's wrong in the organization. There is simply nothing more valuable or instructive in fixing a broken business than talking to the people that live it every day.

3. Identify the key disciplines in the organization (Player Development, Player Evaluation, Sales & Marketing, Operations & Facilities, Finance & Legal etc.) and using #1 and #2 review the entire organization from top to bottom to determine what works and what doesn't work.

4. For areas of success (example - I've always felt that Camden Yards is run fantastically well, so maybe Operations & Facilities is in good shape) identify the key people in those divisions and make sure they stay in key roles in the organization moving forward. Where possible find competent people who have excelled in their roles and look for ways to promote them into roles of greater responsibility in areas of failure.

5. For each area of failure (example - player development, scouting) bring in an outside executive who is completely unconnected with the current organization and who has a proven track record in rehabilitating failing organizations / divisions in his area of expertise and have them scrutinize and analyze the existing personnel and system top to bottom.

6. Using the information gained from 1 - 5, build a small, executive team with expertise in each core discipline to conceptualize, author and publish a comprehensive strategy that clearly outlines the expected behavior, work ethic, business goals, organizational goals and disciplinary goals for the entire organization.

7. Reward any employee, executive or player who doesn't fit into the Organizational Strategy with a generous severance package. Be absolutely ruthless in removing employees who are not exceptional at their jobs regardless of who they are, how long they've been with the organization or who their relatives are or any other non-performance based concerns.

8. Where key executives have been let go - hire the best possible people to replace them. A premium would be placed hiring away individuals who have built the most successful divisions at other MLB franchises. Basically find the best scouting director in baseball and do whatever it takes to hire them away. Find the best manager and do the same. Repeat as necessary.

If I were to accomplish these tasks, I'd have the top available people in key positions (Scouting, Player Development, Coaching, etc) and as long as I gave them the authority and resources to do their job, I wouldn't need to have anything more than basic experience in any of their areas of expertise. The key to this type of approach is the GM must have the ability to put his ego aside and trust his people when it comes to decisions in their areas of competence. This is where most "bad" CEOs / GMs fail. They aren't capable of delegating important decisions, so they make poor decisions based on limited understanding instead listening to the people who know what they are doing.

This type of approach isn't the only way to success. George Steinbrenner overcame his Ego and constant meddling by allocating an unlimited amount of money over an unlimited amount of time and basically buying his way out of every mistake he made.

But this method doesn't require a GM with extensive baseball experience. It requires a GM to hire people with extensive baseball experience and let them use that experience to their fullest extent.

I think there are many skills here that are applicable to CEOs and GMs. The ego aspect is what would make some of the more "insistent" posters fail if they were given an opportunity. No way some of the more obvious folks could subvert their own opinions for that of executives hired to solely dedicate their time to one discipline. Not happening.

[Malike]

Thanks for applying a blanket general statement to 1000s of people you've never met and have absolutely no information about.

All you can say for certain is that YOU couldn't do it. Making claims for anyone else is pure speculation.

The O's are a business like any other business. There are probably dozens of people who are executives for companies that are every bit as complex as an MLB franchise who post on OH. Casting every OH poster as a video game GM is just stupid.

No, really. You couldn't do it. I know you think you can, but you can't. The sooner you accept that and move on, the better off you will be. You might be able to OWN a franchise with your experience, but, no, you couldn't be the GM. Just accept that and move on.

[bluedog]

Ok bluedog here is where I think you are wrong. While I understand many different types post on here and there are people that are very qualified to be executives or professionals on here. Like you I think I am one of those. I have been a successful exec myself. What I see as a real difference in the baseball industry is the fact that it is a zero sum game and the resources are highly perishable, extremely rare and unpredictable. I think you can do everything right and still have limited success to show for it. In the world outside of baseball you have the ability to adapt and have success outside of a industries normal. In sports you win or you don't and there are only so many games, if the other guy wins you fail. I think the skills you have would be common among the best GMs in baseball. But the years of learning the industry can't be shortcut, IMO. The guys everyone point to, even in this thread did their time learning. Sure the guys that think outside the traditional box can and do find better methods. But that does not mean that they did not develop those methods during years of learning the industry.

I would agree that if there was a qualified poster on here willing to toil away in a ML baseball club for 7-10 years they very well might be able to consistently do better than AM at GM. The point made about the distinction between GM and CEO is very big in this situation.

Fair points, but even in a zero sum economy, there are always things that are overvalued and undervalued and the economics of those commodities have almost nothing that is specific to "baseball knowledge". For example, it doesn't take any baseball knowledge at all to understand that there are huge opportunities to be had in international player development simply because so many teams aren't spending the time, money and resources to keep up with the leaders in that area (Rangers for example).

The Rays are taking advantage of another underutilized system by dumping all of their veteran (overvalued) relievers and rebuilding with other teams cast offs each year. Somehow they are doing a better job of identifying low cost / high ceiling relievers than anyone else and this "cottage industry" is allowing them to stockpile draft picks when their relievers leave for greener pastures through free agency while allowing them to also keep their costs down in the process.

The A's focus on non-sexy stats during the early days of Beane's tenure was another example of gaming a closed economy for maximum advantage.

Daryl Morey in Houston is doing the same thing by collecting 2nd year "busts" who were high draft picks because he knows that those players are all probably much more valuable than their "bust" label suggests, even if they aren't the stars their original team's hoped for when they drafted them.

None of these strategies require extensive baseball (or basketball knowledge) they just require understanding of economics and market dynamics. We see a form of this dynamic every single year at the trade deadline - teams are willing to give up greater value in prospects than they would at other times of the year to grab a key veteran player because the opportunity to reach the playoffs increases the perceived value of those players.

The O's could (and given how badly the current team has fallen, they probably should) play upon that market dynamic to pack their farm system with talent. If the O's go into a mode where they trade all of their older players whenever they peak in value (see J.J. Hardy, Koji, Adam Jones, etc), stop spending money on veterans in a vain attempt to reach .500, ignore wins and losses for several years and put all of their money and effort into the amateur draft, international scouting and the Rule V draft, they could take advantage of the fact that the vast majority of MLB clubs overvalue winning now and undervalue winning in the future.

These are strategic decisions based on market factors. They don't require specialized knowledge of baseball.

Now picking the right players in trades and drafts and figuring out how to manage their development certainly does require specialized knowledge, but that's where the GM can (and should) bring in experts to assist him.

[foxfield]

Ticket sales, customer service and ballpark tours.

Peon stuff.

But let me tell you something, even on that level, you could tell how screwed up everything is. You saw unqualified people getting promotions even though they didn't deserve them but they were friends of the Angelos family.

Baseball is very much a good ol boys network. Those guys may have contacts and things like el gordo is talking about but that doesn't make them the right people for the jobs and it doesn't make them all knowing guys.

Thanks for the reply. I agree that there is a good ole boys network. I just wanted some grounding as to where your experience was... I have caught that you worked for the O's just never really put together what you did. Thanks for the answer.

[bluedog]

No, really. You couldn't do it. I know you think you can, but you can't. The sooner you accept that and move on, the better off you will be. You might be able to OWN a franchise with your experience, but, no, you couldn't be the GM. Just accept that and move on.

I not only think I could do it, I'm certain I could. No amount of you projecting your own personal limitations on me can change that certainty. How about you just accept that and move on?

[Malike]

I not only think I could do it, I'm certain I could. No amount of you projecting your own personal limitations on me can change that certainty. How about you just accept that and move on?

Again, from what you've posted, you clearly state you lack the skill set that is vital for the position. So your plan would be to hire people to do the things that you are supposed to do. I suppose if you go that route, then anyone could do the job. If you can't evaluate talent, and can't trust your own judgement when it comes to players, you have no business being a GM. If you need to hire people to make trade decisions for you, then you'd make a terrible GM. I'm not trying to insult you, you keep pointing to my limitations and I'm merely a Detective, I don't have a fancy CEO job, or whatever. Part of people's strengths are knowing your limitations. You've stated in this very thread that you lack the qualities to evaluate, etc. You wouldn't be a GM, you'd be a puppet, relying on others to tell you what to do for your franchise.